Re[2]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 31225
interpreted = N
texte = My proposed solution would allow the templates to exist as is, with the changedtag, and operate just exactly like they do now. You would need to redo nothingexcept the tag to remain insecure. How is that rewriting everything? I amunclear about how your example of an include file for errorchecking has anybearing on the discussion. We are talking about how any variables passed on thecommand line would no longer override text/math variable defined in thetemplate.For a really good example why it is not a good idea to rely on context sensitivevariables, look up the running discussion two months ago or so with Kenregarding a variable called [max]. Perl has something called closures, whichallows you to explicitly force a variable to go out of context. It also has my,our, and local so you can make sure that you don't clobber a global value with alocal value, etc.John Peacock____________________Reply Separator____________________Subject: Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables Author: Date: 5/2/2000 10:33 AM> My suggestion this morning for compatibility () is a> reasonable accomodation for those people who do not want to redo the _logic_> of> their templates. It's not redoing the logic, it's about redoing the whole stuff!!!Like a form template which uses an include for the form itself, a sectionwhere it detects errors, and show the same include again if there is amistake.And many other things like that.The question is: do we want to get rid of this great feature???The answer is: NO.#############################################################This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re[2]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)

My proposed solution would allow the templates to exist as is, with the changedtag, and operate just exactly like they do now. You would need to redo nothingexcept the tag to remain insecure. How is that rewriting everything? I amunclear about how your example of an include file for errorchecking has anybearing on the discussion. We are talking about how any variables passed on thecommand line would no longer override text/math variable defined in thetemplate.For a really good example why it is not a good idea to rely on context sensitivevariables, look up the running discussion two months ago or so with Kenregarding a variable called [max]. Perl has something called closures, whichallows you to explicitly force a variable to go out of context. It also has my,our, and local so you can make sure that you don't clobber a global value with alocal value, etc.John Peacock____________________Reply Separator____________________Subject: Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables Author: Date: 5/2/2000 10:33 AM> My suggestion this morning for compatibility () is a> reasonable accomodation for those people who do not want to redo the _logic_> of> their templates. It's not redoing the logic, it's about redoing the whole stuff!!!Like a form template which uses an include for the form itself, a sectionwhere it detects errors, and show the same include again if there is amistake.And many other things like that.The question is: do we want to get rid of this great feature???The answer is: NO.#############################################################This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to jpeacock@univpress.com

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re[2]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables

2000

Top Articles:

Related Readings: